NOT FOR PUBLICATION

THIS DECISION DOES NOT CREATE LEGAL PRECEDENT AND MAY NOT BE CITED EXCEPT AS AUTHORIZED BY APPLICABLE RULES See Ariz. R. Sup. Ct. 111(c)(1); Ariz. R. Crim. P. 31.24

MEMORANDUM DECISION

VÁSQUEZ, Judge.

¶1 Cord Dunsmore petitions for review of the trial court's summary dismissal of his untimely notice of post-conviction relief, filed pursuant to Rule 32, Ariz. R. Crim. P. We grant review, but we deny relief.

¶2 Pursuant to plea agreements in two separate cause numbers, consolidated for changes of plea and sentencing, Dunsmore was convicted in October 2013 of forgery of a credit card and weapons misconduct. The trial court sentenced him to a maximum, three-year prison term for the credit card forgery, to be followed by a four-year term of probation for the weapons misconduct. The court also ordered Dunsmore to pay $3,939.00 in restitution to the victim of the credit card forgery, which included the estimated future costs of having his stolen credit cards monitored for fraudulent activity.

¶3 In December 2014, Dunsmore filed a "Notice of Delayed Petition for Rule 32" in which he alleged his "research indicates" the victim of the credit card forgery "has not spent a cent" on the credit monitoring service he spoke of at Dunsmore's sentencing. He asked that the victim be ordered to provide receipts for costs incurred and that the court adjust the restitution award to reflect "the sums spent."

¶4 In a detailed ruling, the trial court summarily dismissed Dunsmore's notice, noting (1) he did not allege any factual or legal basis to support a finding that his failure to file a timely, of-right notice "was without fault on [his] part," Ariz. R. Crim. P. 32.1(f); (2) he had, in his plea agreement, agreed to pay restitution in an amount not to exceed $15,000 and had waived the right to an evidentiary hearing on the amount of restitution claimed; (3) he failed to identify how his request for receipts is cognizable under Rule 32; and (4) he failed to identify any legal basis for ordering the victim to provide receipts to account for the restitution awarded. This petition for review followed.

¶5 We review a summary denial of post-conviction relief for an abuse of discretion, State v. Bennett, 213 Ariz. 562, ¶ 17, 146 P.3d 63, 67 (2006), and we find none here. On review, Dunsmore does not challenge the trial court's analysis directly. Instead, he appears to argue his untimely filing should have been excused by "fraud perpetrated by the victim upon the court." In support of his argument, he cites United States v. Loud Hawk, 628 F.2d 1139, 1152 (9th Cir. 1979), overruled in part by United States v. W.R. Grace, 526 F.3d 499 (9th Cir. 2008), and Jonathan K. Van Patten and Robert E. Willard, The Limits of Advocacy: A Proposal for the Tort of Malicious Defense in Civil Litigation, 35 Hastings L.J. 891, 917 (1984), but neither authority supports the proposition he advances. In addition, in his notice of post-conviction relief, he did not argue this as a basis for his claim that his failure to file a timely, of-right notice was without fault on his part, see Ariz. R. Crim. P. 32.1(f), and this court does not consider issues raised for the first time on review, State v. Ramirez, 126 Ariz. 464, 468, 616 P.2d 924, 928 (App. 1980).

¶6 In sum, the trial court clearly identified Dunsmore's claim and resolved it correctly based on a thorough, well-reasoned analysis, which we need not repeat. See State v. Whipple, 177 Ariz. 272, 274, 866 P.2d 1358, 1360 (App. 1993). For the foregoing reasons, as well as those stated in the trial court's ruling, we grant review, but deny relief.